Yeah, I didn't really believe it either.
I can't remember if it came out at any appeal, or before. Need to look it up
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lucy Letby infant murders trial - Guilty verdict (P 13)
- Thread starter PannickAtTheDisco
- Start date
I can't remember if it came out at any appeal, or before. Need to look it up
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Yes, and the family whose house the shotgun was ‘found’ in had motive as they (iirc) inherited the farm.The bloke was a **** to be fair - showed little grief, started selling his families antiques and then went abroad on holiday just before he was arrested. But the only real evidence was the silencer on the shotgun and the police didn’t find that until weeks after the murders - the dna on the silencer is declared unreliable.
The judge led the jury to convict him - he strongly directed them to go for a guilty verdict.
As I said (and you alluded to) that shotgun had so many evidential holes in it, not least because of where and when it was found.
It’s a toughie, because I think he did it, but if he hadn’t been such a **** in the witness box there’s a good chance he might be walking free today.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I didn't really believe it either.
I can't remember if it came out at any appeal, or before. Need to look it up
Just found this. Might read it after the Forest game is over. I do recall the CoA Justices saying they were more certain of his guilt after this appeal, but they are never going to express equivocation when dismissing an appeal against a murder conviction.
Just found this. Might read it after the Forest game is over. I do recall the CoA Justices saying they were more certain of his guilt after this appeal, but they are never going to express equivocation when dismissing an appeal against a murder conviction.
Yes, can understand why they didn't.
And another "yes".....in that he didn't help himself by being a quite horrible little shit. I know that's not a basis for a conviction but on the "balance of probability" I'd go for him being the guilty party rather than the mother.
Just because you are schizophrenic (which is pretty much all his defence had against his adoptive sister) it doesn't mean you are capable of killing.
TueartsOHK
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 2,510
- Location
- Denton to West Midlands
- Team supported
- Citizens of Hope and Glory
There were a few things that didn’t add up about her. The rifle magazine had to be reloaded to fire that many shots - not only was it hard to load but they were wax coated bullets. If you see her hands on the crime scene photo her hands are perfectly manicured and they didn’t find a trace of wax. As Gordon says I can’t see her killing her own kids - she was devoted to them.Yes, can understand why they didn't.
And another "yes".....in that he didn't help himself by being a quite horrible little shit. I know that's not a basis for a conviction but on the "balance of probability" I'd go for him being the guilty party rather than the mother.
Just because you are schizophrenic (which is pretty much all his defence had against his adoptive sister) it doesn't mean you are capable of killing.
I agree.There were a few things that didn’t add up about her. The rifle magazine had to be reloaded to fire that many shots - not only was it hard to load but they were wax coated bullets. If you see her hands on the crime scene photo her hands are perfectly manicured and they didn’t find a trace of wax. As Gordon says I can’t see her killing her own kids - she was devoted to them.
She didn't have peace of mind, but it doesn't make her a killer. She loved those boys, even her ex said that much.
Edit...which sounds kind of shite in a way, because sometimes people do kill those closest to them...in a strange but perverted sense of "protection."
It's just that the brother was a complete twat. And the evidence points towards him.
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Edit: reading that judgment, it was not the gun, but the silencer that was found.Yes, and the family whose house the shotgun was ‘found’ in had motive as they (iirc) inherited the farm.
As I said (and you alluded to) that shotgun had so many evidential holes in it, not least because of where and when it was found.
It’s a toughie, because I think he did it, but if he hadn’t been such a **** in the witness box there’s a good chance he might be walking free today.
Yes, wasn't it found in a closet or something?Edit: reading that judgment, it was not the gun, but the silencer that was found.
My memory isn't great on this though